<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div><br><div><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;}--</style>Richard Fairhurst wrote: <br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div><br>> As far as most state geodata organisations are concerned, both OSGEO <br>> and OSM are probably a bunch of weird hippies who all use that strange <br>> Linux thing that isn't as good as Windows; and frankly they don't see <br>> a big RoI in differentiating between one bunch of hippies and another. <br>> If OSM approaches first, followed by OSGEO, you could understand an <br>> exasperated "*rolleyes* we've _already_ sorted this, haven't we?". Or <br>> vice versa.<br><br>This
has changed. The quality of OSGeo software and OSM data, generally
shifting attitudes towards open source and crowd sourced data, and the
dawning realization that OS* may actually the better model for managing
state geodata, are all contributing to serious interest. There are
people in almost every NMA I talk to who know about OSM, find it
interesting, and ask serious questions of OSM and their own lawyers and
management. It may not always fly yet, but this is serious
consideration.<br><br>> A co-ordinated approach is more likely to yield a result beneficial to <br>> both purposes, rather than to the organisation that gets there first. <br>> (Of course, Robin may already have spoken to them. I don't know the <br>> specifics.)<br><br>The
coordinated approach worked well in Italy, where OSGeo and OSM work
closely (really it's the same set of people). The municipalities of
Merano and Arezzo have released their geodata. <br><br>-Mikel<br></div></div><span id="lw_beacon_1209482499204"></span></div><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;}--></style><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>